搜索结果：Essays

This study addresses critical gaps in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems and Large Language Models (LLMs) with regard to their ability to effectively identify and score harmful essays. Despite advancements in AES technology, current models often overlook ethically and morally problematic elements within essays, erroneously assigning high scores to essays that may propagate harmful opinions. In this study, we introduce the Harmful Essay Detection (HED) benchmark, which includes essays integrating sensitive topics such as racism and gender bias, to test the efficacy of various LLMs in recognizing and scoring harmful content. Our findings reveal that: (1) LLMs require further enhancement to accurately distinguish between harmful and argumentative essays, and (2) both current AES models and LLMs fail to consider the ethical dimensions of content during scoring. The study underscores the need for developing more robust AES systems that are sensitive to the ethical implications of the content they are scoring.

Data augmentation can mitigate limited training data in machine-learning automated scoring engines for constructed response items. This study seeks to determine how well three approaches to large language model prompting produce essays that preserve the writing quality of the original essays and produce realistic text for augmenting ASE training datasets. We created simulated versions of student essays, and human raters assigned scores to them and rated the realism of the generated text. The results of the study indicate that the predict next prompting strategy produces the highest level of agreement between human raters regarding simulated essay scores, predict next and sentence strategies best preserve the rated quality of the original essay in the simulated essays, and predict next and 25 examples strategies produce the most realistic text as judged by human raters.

Large language models have recently been proposed as tools for automated essay scoring, but their agreement with human grading remains unclear. In this work, we evaluate how LLM-generated scores compare with human grades and analyze the grading behavior of several models from the GPT and Llama families in an out-of-the-box setting, without task-specific training. Our results show that agreement between LLM and human scores remains relatively weak and varies with essay characteristics. In particular, compared to human raters, LLMs tend to assign higher scores to short or underdeveloped essays, while assigning lower scores to longer essays that contain minor grammatical or spelling errors. We also find that the scores generated by LLMs are generally consistent with the feedback they generate: essays receiving more praise tend to receive higher scores, while essays receiving more criticism tend to receive lower scores. These results suggest that LLM-generated scores and feedback follow coherent patterns but rely on signals that differ from those used by human raters, resulting in limited alignment with human grading practices. Nevertheless, our work shows that LLMs produce feedback th

People are increasingly using technologies equipped with large language models (LLM) to write texts for formal communication, which raises two important questions at the intersection of technology and society: Who do LLMs write like (model alignment); and can LLMs be prompted to change who they write like (model steerability). We investigate these questions in the high-stakes context of undergraduate admissions at a selective university by comparing lexical and sentence variation between essays written by 30,000 applicants to two types of LLM-generated essays: one prompted with only the essay question used by the human applicants; and another with additional demographic information about each applicant. We consistently find that both types of LLM-generated essays are linguistically distinct from human-authored essays, regardless of the specific model and analytical approach. Further, prompting a specific sociodemographic identity is remarkably ineffective in aligning the model with the linguistic patterns observed in human writing from this identity group. This holds along the key dimensions of sex, race, first-generation status, and geographic location. The demographically prompte

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has enabled the generation of coherent essays, making AI-assisted writing increasingly common in educational and professional settings. Using large-scale empirical data, we examine and benchmark the characteristics and quality of essays generated by popular LLMs and discuss their implications for two key components of writing assessments: automated scoring and academic integrity. Our findings highlight limitations in existing automated scoring systems, such as e-rater, when applied to essays generated or heavily influenced by AI, and identify areas for improvement, including the development of new features to capture deeper thinking and recalibrating feature weights. Despite growing concerns that the increasing variety of LLMs may undermine the feasibility of detecting AI-generated essays, our results show that detectors trained on essays generated from one model can often identify texts from others with high accuracy, suggesting that effective detection could remain manageable in practice.

AI generated content (AIGC) presents considerable challenge to educators around the world. Instructors need to be able to detect such text generated by large language models, either with the naked eye or with the help of some tools. There is also growing need to understand the lexical, syntactic and stylistic features of AIGC. To address these challenges in English language teaching, we first present ArguGPT, a balanced corpus of 4,038 argumentative essays generated by 7 GPT models in response to essay prompts from three sources: (1) in-class or homework exercises, (2) TOEFL and (3) GRE writing tasks. Machine-generated texts are paired with roughly equal number of human-written essays with three score levels matched in essay prompts. We then hire English instructors to distinguish machine essays from human ones. Results show that when first exposed to machine-generated essays, the instructors only have an accuracy of 61% in detecting them. But the number rises to 67% after one round of minimal self-training. Next, we perform linguistic analyses of these essays, which show that machines produce sentences with more complex syntactic structures while human essays tend to be lexically

Automated Essay Scoring automates the grading process of essays, providing a great advantage for improving the writing proficiency of students. While holistic essay scoring research is prevalent, a noticeable gap exists in scoring essays for specific quality traits. In this work, we focus on the relevance trait, which measures the ability of the student to stay on-topic throughout the entire essay. We propose a novel approach for graded relevance scoring of written essays that employs dense retrieval encoders. Dense representations of essays at different relevance levels then form clusters in the embeddings space, such that their centroids are potentially separate enough to effectively represent their relevance levels. We hence use the simple 1-Nearest-Neighbor classification over those centroids to determine the relevance level of an unseen essay. As an effective unsupervised dense encoder, we leverage Contriever, which is pre-trained with contrastive learning and demonstrated comparable performance to supervised dense retrieval models. We tested our approach on both task-specific (i.e., training and testing on same task) and cross-task (i.e., testing on unseen task) scenarios usi

BERT and its variants are extensively explored for automated scoring. However, a limit of 512 tokens for these encoder-based models showed the deficiency in automated scoring of long essays. Thus, this research explores generative language models for automated scoring of long essays via summarization and prompting. The results revealed great improvement of scoring accuracy with QWK increased from 0.822 to 0.8878 for the Learning Agency Lab Automated Essay Scoring 2.0 dataset.

This study evaluates $n = 300$ short-form physics essay submissions, equally divided between student work submitted before the introduction of ChatGPT and those generated by OpenAI's GPT-4. In blinded evaluations conducted by five independent markers who were unaware of the origin of the essays, we observed no statistically significant differences in scores between essays authored by humans and those produced by AI (p-value $= 0.107$, $α$ = 0.05). Additionally, when the markers subsequently attempted to identify the authorship of the essays on a 4-point Likert scale - from `Definitely AI' to `Definitely Human' - their performance was only marginally better than random chance. This outcome not only underscores the convergence of AI and human authorship quality but also highlights the difficulty of discerning AI-generated content solely through human judgment. Furthermore, the effectiveness of five commercially available software tools for identifying essay authorship was evaluated. Among these, ZeroGPT was the most accurate, achieving a 98% accuracy rate and a precision score of 1.0 when its classifications were reduced to binary outcomes. This result is a source of potential optimi

Background: Recently, ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users and become part of the public discourse. Many believe that such models will disrupt society and will result in a significant change in the education system and information generation in the future. So far, this belief is based on either colloquial evidence or benchmarks from the owners of the models -- both lack scientific rigour. Objective: Through a large-scale study comparing human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays, we systematically assess the quality of the AI-generated content. Methods: A large corpus of essays was rated using standard criteria by a large number of human experts (teachers). We augment the analysis with a consideration of the linguistic characteristics of the generated essays. Results: Our results demonstrate that ChatGPT generates essays that are rated higher for quality than human-written essays. The writing style of the AI models exhibits linguistic characteristics that are different from those of the human-written essays, e.g., it is characterized by fewer discourse and epistemic markers, but more nominalizations and great

We occasionally include projects in our learner-centered introductory astronomy college course to enable non-science major students explore some astronomical concepts in more detail than otherwise. Such projects also highlight ongoing or upcoming astronomical events. We hope that students will feel more interested in astronomy through projects tied to astronomical events. In Spring 2012, we offered short essays focused on eclipses, transits and occultations to promote the rare transit of Venus that occurred on June 5th, 2012. We asked students to write two short essays from three that were offered. The essays contained descriptive and conceptual parts. They were meant to serve as teaching tools. 62% of 106 essays from 55 students earned A, B or C grades. 21% of 47 feedback survey respondents felt the essays increased their interest in astronomy. 49% of respondents felt that the essays were not educationally beneficial and should not be offered again. The most common written response to our survey indicated that students need more guidance and better preparation in writing successful essays. Since students found the conceptual parts of the essays difficult, in the future we will pro

The manual assessment and grading of student writing is a time-consuming yet critical task for teachers. Recent developments in generative AI, such as large language models, offer potential solutions to facilitate essay-scoring tasks for teachers. In our study, we evaluate the performance and reliability of both open-source and closed-source LLMs in assessing German student essays, comparing their evaluations to those of 37 teachers across 10 pre-defined criteria (i.e., plot logic, expression). A corpus of 20 real-world essays from Year 7 and 8 students was analyzed using five LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, o1, LLaMA 3-70B, and Mixtral 8x7B, aiming to provide in-depth insights into LLMs' scoring capabilities. Closed-source GPT models outperform open-source models in both internal consistency and alignment with human ratings, particularly excelling in language-related criteria. The novel o1 model outperforms all other LLMs, achieving Spearman's $r = .74$ with human assessments in the overall score, and an internal consistency of $ICC=.80$. These findings indicate that LLM-based assessment can be a useful tool to reduce teacher workload by supporting the evaluation of essays, especially with

The dissertation consists of three essays on responsible and sustainable finance. I show that local communities should be seen as stakeholders to decisions made by corporations. In the first essay, I examine whether the imposition of fiduciary duty on municipal advisors affects bond yields and advising fees. Using a difference-in-differences analysis, I show that bond yields reduce by 9\% after the imposition of the SEC Municipal Advisor Rule. In the second essay, we analyze the impact of USD 40 billion of corporate subsidies given by U.S. local governments on their borrowing costs. We find that winning counties experience a 15 bps increase in bond yield spread as compared to the losing counties. In the third essay, we provide new evidence that the bankruptcy filing of a locally-headquartered and publicly-listed manufacturing firm imposes externalities on the local governments. Compared to matched counties with similar economic trends, municipal bond yields for affected counties increase by 10 bps within a year of the firm filing for bankruptcy. The final essay examines whether managers walk the talk on the environmental and social discussion. We train a deep-learning model on vari

Research on automated essay scoring has become increasing important because it serves as a method for evaluating students' written-responses at scale. Scalable methods for scoring written responses are needed as students migrate to online learning environments resulting in the need to evaluate large numbers of written-response assessments. The purpose of this study is to describe and evaluate three active learning methods than can be used to minimize the number of essays that must be scored by human raters while still providing the data needed to train a modern automated essay scoring system. The three active learning methods are the uncertainty-based, the topological-based, and the hybrid method. These three methods were used to select essays included as part of the Automated Student Assessment Prize competition that were then classified using a scoring model that was training with the bidirectional encoder representations from transformer language model. All three active learning methods produced strong results, with the topological-based method producing the most efficient classification. Growth rate accuracy was also evaluated. The active learning methods produced different lev

One important aspect of language is how speakers generate utterances and texts to convey their intended meanings. In this paper, we bring various aspects of the Construction Grammar (CxG) and the Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) theories in a deep learning computational framework to model empathic language. Our corpus consists of 440 essays written by premed students as narrated simulated patient-doctor interactions. We start with baseline classifiers (state-of-the-art recurrent neural networks and transformer models). Then, we enrich these models with a set of linguistic constructions proving the importance of this novel approach to the task of empathy classification for this dataset. Our results indicate the potential of such constructions to contribute to the overall empathy profile of first-person narrative essays.